Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

David Newton: Panthers will NOT add Gurley or Gordon (unless they fall to the second)!


top dawg

Recommended Posts

People take BPA way too literally. Position absolutely figures into the BPA equation.

Yep. BPA is team specific. Need, preference, scheme, roster....all influence it.

Claiming BPA is really just coach talk and way to not talk about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. BPA is team specific. Need, preference, scheme, roster....all influence it.

Claiming BPA is really just coach talk and way to not talk about it

 

 

I think DG would disagree with you. Said if there is a log jam so be it. BPA is BPA and we will fill need in FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched virtually nothing of Gordon but Gurley is incredible. If he's there on board in the 2nd, then even I in all my disdain for high round RBs would be hard pressed to pass him up.

 

 

 

Except that he's always tended to be injury prone.

 

It was a pleasant surprise for UGA fans this year after the true freshman Nick Chubb stepped in for the injured Gurley.  They had a running back that didn't have to constantly be subbed and took typical running back punishment without getting injured finally.  :lol:

 

Gurley is a great break-away threat as a RB, but I've had enough injury cases over the past few years, TYVM.  I still wouldn't complain if we took him in the 2nd, I'd hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the first round we are drafting BPA out of WRs OTs and basically any defensive player. 

 

Oh boy I can't wait until a top pass rusher is still on the board when we pick in the first, and Gettleman's face lights up and he pulls the trigger... I can just see it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Newton was speaking in absolutes.

 

 

He said it "would be stunning" if they picked a RB at 25, but didn't say they absolutely wouldn't.

 

I don't know how you mistake "won't" for anything else than "won't".   He could have easily said "probably won't".  As for "it would be stunning", that is easily taken in the fantastical sense. "Won't" really isn't equivocal. 

 

edit: Hell, he could have said "won't, unless...", and that would have added some room for future qualification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, we have atleast 25 players ranked above both of them...?

It woudn't be too hard for 25 players to be ranked above them:  4 wide receivers, 5 or 6 offensive tackles, 3 or 4 guards, 2 tight ends which is 15 or 16 and that is just offense.  If you have a number of corners, a few safeties, a couple of linebackers, maybe a few DEs, some DTs, you can easily come up with 30 players who would be better than the top running backs given you can find similar or equivalent talent in later rounds.  It isnt just their position but whether or not they are the BPA at that point in time when we pick.  If there are other guys deemed similar in talent later in the draft then they are not really the BPA when you can find a similar one down the road.  For BPA they need to be the best players compared to anyone else and you can't find someone as good if you wait later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DG would disagree with you. Said if there is a log jam so be it. BPA is BPA and we will fill need in FA.

BPA is coach speak. Who is BPA for team A, team B, team C are all likely different. So BPA isn't BPA. It is team specific largely.

Cam was BPA for us in 2011.....bc of Carolina factors. Wasn't probably for most teams at 1....not even top 32 for some. Yes there are some examples of a glaring BPA....but overall BPA actually factors in many things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...